Kekana v Society of Advocates of SA (57/98) [1998] ZASCA 54; 1998 (4) SA 649 (SCA); [1998] 3 All SA 577 (A) (1 June 1998)

Kekana v Society of Advocates of SA (57/98) [1998] ZASCA 54; 1998 (4) SA 649 (SCA); [1998] 3 All SA 577 (A) (1 June 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant's non-compliance with the rules was gross and unexplained, and his conduct in submitting fraudulent claims and repeatedly lying under oath rendered him unfit to continue practising as an advocate. The court found that the trial court's decision to remove the applicant from the roll was justified, given the seriousness of the offences, the breach of public trust, and the aggravating factor of perjury. The disparity in treatment between the applicant and Mabena was warranted due to the applicant's greater experience and his persistent dishonesty. The court declined to interfere with the trial court's discretion regarding both the penalty...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 54
Parties
Applicant: K Kekana; Respondent: Society of Advocates of SA
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1998
Case Number
57/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Petition for Reinstatement of Appeal
Outcome
Petition for reinstatement of the appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the appeal.
Judges
JJF Hefer, Nienaber, Olivier, Scott, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Removal From Roll, Professional Misconduct, Judicial Discretion, Perjury, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Removal From Roll Professional Misconduct Judicial Discretion Perjury Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K Kekana

Applicant

Society of Advocates of SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Petition for Reinstatement of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition for reinstatement of the appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's removal from the roll of advocates was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the penalty imposed on the applicant was disproportionate compared to the co-offender.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant's non-compliance with the rules was gross and unexplained, and his conduct in submitting fraudulent claims and repeatedly lying under oath rendered him unfit to continue practising as an advocate. The court found that the trial court's decision to remove the applicant from the roll was justified, given the seriousness of the offences, the breach of public trust, and the aggravating factor of perjury. The disparity in treatment between the applicant and Mabena was warranted due to the applicant's greater experience and his persistent dishonesty. The court declined to interfere with the trial court's discretion regarding both the penalty...

Court Disposition

Petition for reinstatement of the appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • The petition for reinstatement of the appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the appeal.